A law firm that avoided a legal malpractice suit by directing its former clients to sue another party cannot seek dismissal of a subsequent malpractice claim on statute of limitations grounds, a New York judge has ruled. The plaintiffs seek $5 million in damages, claiming former law firm Battle Fowler committed malpractice in 1991. Battle Fowler merged with Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in 2000. The latter firm is not a party to the suit, though 46 former Battle Fowler partners are named as defendants.
February 15, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A law firm that avoided a legal malpractice suit by directing its former clients to sue another party cannot seek dismissal of a subsequent malpractice claim against it on statute of limitations grounds, a state judge has ruled.
The plaintiffs claim former New York law firm Battle Fowler committed malpractice by failing to include language in a 1991 agreement that would have protected the capital of parties withdrawing from a Rhode Island real estate investment partnership.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
